Marilyn Stowe Blog

JamesB on October 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm

I have been keeping an eye on this since 2004. This is about the 4th such document and DWP has had many ministers.

Surely it would be better to stop digging and go back to court as it was prior to the CSA, why don’t they do that please? I know it wasn’t popular, but more popular than the CSA and at least it didn’t undermine marriage as this will and the CSA has.

This also seems in contradiction to your comment’s on ‘This Morning’, but I am not sure as I don’t have enough time to study this. Tbh it just seems a big mess and the government are continuing to dig. Is a serious question though, Surely it would be better to stop digging and go back to court as it was prior to the CSA, why don’t they do that please? Would be cheaper and better in the long run also. Politicians don’t seem much cop. I think Boris may be the answer. He was good yesterday, especially on ‘Pap e Neuf du pap chardonnay drinking tax evading socialists’ – he is certainly got something – better than Ian Duncan Smith anyway.

I also remember an excellent article he wrote in the Telegraph about the decline in marriage where he went against the grain and didn’t blame men for it. He is one of the few politicians who r ok.

John on October 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm

This a step in the right direction. it surely must be better that non resident parents are offered a family based arrangement, to show that they are being responsible and understand and want to provide for their children. However, this may take mediation to resolve.

The problem in my case from the outset, was animosity from the parent with care ( who by the way left the marriage through adultery) who demanded her own way all of the time, even though defying court orders regarding contact.

Therefore, I became a ‘sitting duck’ target for the CSA, who would repeatedly target me, as opposed to pursuing the feckless ones who don’t pay or have never paid. (£3.8 billion remains uncollected).

The long term affect in my case, has caused me to deny two out of three children any future inheritance ( I have paid approximately £37,000 in maintenance and A £77,000 divorce settlement). Those two will have to question their mother and the CSA, as to why the CSA attempted to crimnalise me, through their maladministration, and ask their mother, about her shocking attitude towards their father!

Observer on October 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Anything that replaces the CSA will just be another institutionalization of inequality and discrimination.

We need to move forward into a world where fathers are no longer criminalized for having had the misfortune to be born male.

Split the child benefit, legislate on shared parenting, treat parents as the adults that they should be. These are solutions to the present abuses of the system.

It seems however that solutions are of no interest to anyone who is doing well by the current system.

Graham on October 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm

I do agree with you Observer; social services, gingerbread, lawyers, relate, etc. all do well out of breaking up families, yet the Government to go them as experts for advice on the family and future family policy. Outrageous really.

Yvie on October 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Unfortunately like Hydra, if you cut off its head, two more will grow in its place.

Observer – once again I agree with your comments. My son who has a shared residence order thought he was sharing care with his ex. for nearly three years. Both parents cared for the children when in their care, they shared costs of holidays and school uniforms and each bought clothes, toys and other necessities for the children. In addition I provided child care without cost for my son (2 days per week) and my ex. dil (3 days) per week, until August last year when my ex. dil activated a child maintenance claim from 2009. My son was informed in February this year that he owed his ex. nearly £8,000 in arrears which he had no idea were accruing. At first they wanted 40% of his wages leaving him with less than £200 per week to pay all his bills and feed his children. Eventually they agreed to 25% of his wages.

This still leaves a short-fall in his modest bills so he has to rely on family help to ensure his outgoings are met.

Something is very wrong with the CSA when two parents share care (not 50% unforltunately) and the parent will the lower income pays the parent with the higher income.

John on October 12, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Could not agree more Observer. In the last few days, I have discovered that the one remaining child for whom I am embroiled with the CSA, has moved away from home. Therefore, the PWC should not be in receipt of Child benefit, and if this is the case my CSA liability should stop.

Why? is it down to me to pursue information and inform the CSA? The CSA should provide me with regular updates as to the PWC’s status, and my l financial liability.

It is blatantly obvious, by the mere fact that the CSA do not provide this information, that the PWC and the CSA want to conspire and purge as much money as they can from the NRP, irregardless of the circumstances. This is tantamount to fraud!

I am hoping for a ‘class action’ in the future. I would like my day in court facing the incompetent staff, who have treated me worse than a criminal, and obtain justice against this ‘shambolic’ organisation, and those at the top who have turned a ‘blind eye’ to the real goings on at the CSA!